This week the presidential panel on intelligence pointed to the same failings found by other reports. It said intelligence analysts "displayed a lack of imagination." They created artificial specialties - separating regional, technical and terrorism analyses. They built layers of hard analysis on fuzzy and impressionistic information. This commission does what so many others have done. It tries to reorganize the bureaucratic flow charts to produce better results. ...

Individuals are good at using intuition and imagination to understand other humans. We know from recent advances in neuroscience, popularized in Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," that the human mind can perform fantastically complicated feats of subconscious pattern recognition. There is a powerful backstage process we use to interpret the world and the people around us. When you try to analyze human affairs using a process that is systematic, codified and bureaucratic, as the C.I.A. does, you anesthetize all of these tools. You don't produce reason - you produce what Irving Kristol called the elephantiasis of reason.

His treatment:

I'll believe the intelligence community has really changed when I see analysts being sent to training academies where they study Thucydides, Tolstoy and Churchill to get a broad understanding of the full range of human behavior. I'll believe the system has been reformed when policy makers are presented with competing reports, signed by individual thinkers, and are no longer presented with anonymous, bureaucratically homogenized, bulleted points that pretend to be the product of scientific consensus.

I'll believe it's been reformed when there's a big sign in front of C.I.A. headquarters that reads: Individuals think better than groups.

The first paragraph is ridiculously liberal on its face: Greater understanding of the broad range of human behavior (on the part of Intelligence Analysts) will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to aid our understanding of North Korea's KIM JONG IL, or of the MULLAHCRATS OF TEHRAN, or of NEOJIHADIST-TERRORISTS.

The second paragraph is a WHOPPING NON-SEQUITOR whose presence in this column can only be explained as a reflexive recourse to what has become a chic idea inside the Beltway, (but one which is patently false): that the Bush Administration is dominated by "group-think" and this is the reason why it's policies have been so wrong, so often; (Beltway snobs belive this in spite of the fact that events unfolding RIGHT NOW in Iraq and the Middle East and the former Soviet Union show that the Bush Administration haven't been so wrong at all!).

As it happens, the possibilities of group intelligence, at least when it came to judging questions of fact, were demonstrated by a host of experiments conducted by American sociologists and psychologists between 1920 and the mid-1950s, the heyday of research into group dynamics. Although in general, as we'll see, the bigger the crowd the better, the groups in most of these early experiments—which for some reason remained relatively unknown outside of academia—were relatively small. Yet they nonetheless performed very well.

The Columbia sociologist Hazel Knight kicked things off with a series of studies in the early 1920s, the first of which had the virtue of simplicity. In that study Knight asked the students in her class to estimate the room's temperature, and then took a simple average of the estimates. The group guessed 72.4 degrees, while the actual temperature was 72 degrees. This was not, to be sure, the most auspicious beginning, since classroom temperatures are so stable that it's hard to imagine a class's estimate being too far off base. But in the years that followed, far more convincing evidence emerged, as students and soldiers across America were subjected to a barrage of puzzles, intelligence tests, and word games.

The sociologist Kate H. Gordon asked two hundred students to rank items by weight, and found that the group's "estimate" was 94 percent accurate, which was better than all but five of the individual guesses. In another experiment students were asked to look at ten piles of buckshot—each a slightly different size than the rest—that had been glued to a piece of white cardboard, and rank them by size. This time, the group's guess was 94.5 percent accurate.

A classic demonstration of group intelligence is the jelly-beans-in-the-jar experiment, in which invariably the group's estimate is superior to the vast majority of the individual guesses. When finance professor Jack Treynor ran the experiment in his class with a jar that held 850 beans, the group estimate was 871. Only one of the fifty-six people in the class made a better guess.

There are COUNTLESS other examples of this phenomena; they all fundamentally reinforce what F.A. Hayek wrote about, and it's WHY free markets are more efficient than politburos and "wage & price boards."

The CIA - and other branches of our intelligence community have probably been way too NARROW in their group size, and too selective in their group make-up. The answer is NOT MORE ELITISM, but wider distribution of the intelligence information, and wider harvesting of more individual opinions.

To improve the analysis of intelligence, we need more group-think from bigger and more diverse groups.

Karol Wojtyla: Imperfect and mortal, like all humans - but not ordinary; he was certainly an extraordinary man - a great defender of the dignity and sanctity of Human life, and of Eternal, Universal values.

He knew Human Life was meant to be more than merely a short exercise in carnal fulfillment and a competition for temporal rewards. He knew that when we serve only ourselves, we serve ignobly and fall short of our innate potential. He knew we are each created with inalienable rights and a responsibility to live in accordance with the Universal. He sought to get humanity to fufill that eternal charge.

His best efforts and great and good achievements shall never fade as long as people continue the struggle to be all that we should be, and make life on Earth harmonious with that is eternally Holy, True, Just, Merciful, Beautiful and Good.

"... even those of us who do not share his faith have been ennobled and inspired by much of what he said and did. But for the entire world, he will forever stand as a symbol of the power of individuals standing firm for freedom. "Be Not Afraid" is indeed the phrase we will associate with him, as it was the phrase that inspired millions of people to risk all against tyranny. "

He helped battle against the tyranny of our fellow humans, and they tyranny of our own weaknesses and faults - for there are many ways to be enslaved. For JPII's noble efforts, we give thanks.

(ASIDE: the president of the United States has ordered the flag be flown at half-mast. WILL THE ACLU SUE?)

She is quoted as having said (to a meeting of the American Society of International Law):

After a strongly worded dissent in a juvenile death penalty case from Justice Antonin Scalia last month that accused the court of putting too much faith in international opinion, Justice Ginsberg said the United States system should, if anything, consider international law more often.

"Judges in the United States are free to consult all manner of commentary," she said in a speech to several hundred lawyers and scholars here Friday. She cited several instances when the logic of foreign courts had been applied to help untangle legal questions domestically, and of legislatures and courts abroad adopting United States law. Fears about relying too heavily on world opinion "should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey," Justice Ginsburg told members of the American Society of International Law. ...

"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification," Justice Ginsburg said. "Even more so today, the United States is subject to the scrutiny of a candid world," she said. "What the United States does, for good or for ill, continues to be watched by the international community, in particular by organizations concerned with the advancement of the rule of law and respect for human dignity."

Her remarks reveal that Ginsburg thinks it is the role of SCOTUS Justices to (a) decide - based on anything they choose: (a) what is a good law; (b) determine for all Americans how to respect human dignity; (c) and use any source to determine how a law should be interpreted. Ginsburg is EXPLICITLY saying that SCOTUS Justices should NOT "MERELY" decide whether a contested law or ruling is allowable under the Constitution.

SHE'S ALL WRONG! The ONLY role of the SCOTUS is to determine if a contested law or ruling on the law is permissible under the one-and-only Constitution we have. Either it is or it isn't - or the Constitution is SILENT on the controversy.

If the Constitution is vague or ambiguous on a given controversy, then there is a possibility - NAY LIKELIHOOD... NO CERTAINTY of a split decision by the SCOTUS. This is what happens MOST of the time. (And, THE FACT IS THAT MOST decisions are split, and NOT closely split, and most Justices agree with each other more than half the time. Thomas agrees with Stevens and Ginsburg and Breyer MORE THAN HALF THE TIME!)

But sometimes, on a given controversy, the Constitution is SILENT. When it is silent, then SOME Justices (the non-originalists, the LEFTISTS) see it as an OPPORTUNITY to INNOVATE, and they look BETWEEN THE LINES, or OVERSEAS for guidance, AS IF THEIR ROLE WAS TO DECIDE WHAT - (in terms of a law) - THEY THINK IS BEST FOR THE REST OF US.

This is simply NOT THEIR ROLE! That is what LEGISLATURES ARE FOR. That is what the Congress was set up to do BY THE CONSTITUTION, and what each state legislature is supposed to do in the realm of state law. (THIS IS KEY: there is a federal realm and a state realm; this is DETERMINED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Some areas of life need to be regulated by the federal government and some by the states. IT'S ALL THERE IN THE CONSTITUTION.)

And this is of course the sui generis raison d'etre FOR a Constitution. (How's THAT for a polyglot hodge-podge!) A nation, or state, has a Constitution for the sole reason of having a basis - a bottom-line, a bedrock foundation - for determining what is allowable and legal.

If Justices look elsewhere then they have effectively DE-constitutionalized the Constitution. They have nullified its sole purpose, made meaningless it sole meaning, and made useless its sole use.

FURTHERMORE, it's simply democratic heresy and a usurpation of authority. Only the PEOPLE - ONLY WE THE PEOPLE have the right to amend the Constitution, and repeal limits WE think need repealing, or create limits where WE think that public intercourse (which is under the purview of the federal government) needs limitations. And the ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL way to do this is through law-making or the Amendment process - BOTH OF WHICH ARE DONE LEGISLATIVELY, AND NOT BY JUDICIAL FIAT FROM THE BENCH.

I think that if any SCOTUS Justice uses any source other than the US Constitution (and Constitutional history/case-work) to decide a case, that they have committed an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

GINSBURG AND BREYER HAVE BOTH DONE THIS, AND FOR THAT OFFENSE, BOTH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.

In A Matter of Interpretation, Justice Scalia acknowledged that his textualist approach is regarded in "some sophisticated circles" of the legal profession as "simpleminded -- 'wooden,' 'unimaginative', 'pedestrian'" (Scalia, p. 23). He rejected this characterization and denied that he was "too dull to perceive the broader social purposes that a statute is designed, or could be designed to serve, or too hidebound to realize that new times require new laws;" he merely insisted that judges "have no authority to pursue those broader purposes or to write those new laws” (Scalia, p. 23). For his eleven years on the Supreme Court, Scalia has stuck to the "text and tradition" of our written Constitution and has rejected the intellectual fads and novel theories of interpretation that have the invariable effect of transferring power from the popular branches to the judges. In so doing, Scalia reminds his colleagues of the most important right of the people in a democracy -- the right to govern themselves as they see fit and to be overruled in their governance only when the clear text or traditional understanding of the Constitution they have adopted demands it.

BRAVO SCALIA! Down with Ginsburg and Leftist ACTIVIST judges who want to rule extra-constitutionally and by fiat. Of course: They tell us it's for our own good. Tyrants always do.

(ADDENDUM TO LEFTISTS: if the SCOTUS adhered to what is the international norm as a way to determine American constitutionality, then the USA would NOT have abortion on demand - only six countries in the world have it, INCLUDING the USA.)

Another BRILLIANT post by Jason over at COUNTERCOLUMN (commenting on Sy Hersh's aritcle in "The Progressive" in which he says we should negotiate with the Iraqi "insurgents" and that he is scared that Bush believes it is his mission to bring democracy to the Middle East ):

The expansion of freedom is a scary prospect for the Left.

Let's reneg on all our commitments, and pull the rug out from under every brave Iraqi who ever took a risk on behalf of his country against terrorism and Ba'athism. Let's sell them down the river.And the elections? Let those be the last in Iraq. Let those be the last in the Middle East. ....

They have no moral cognizance. They have no higher-level ethical reasoning skills. What the Left once was died long ago. All they have is reflex now. The left is morally brain-dead.

They don't believe in taking a stand for the security of the only democracy in the Middle East until this year. They lifted not a finger to bring democracy to anywhere else. They don't even particularly believe in intervening to secure vital natural resources. "No blood for oil" has been a rallying cry for the ignorant for 15 years now.They no longer believe in the advancement of freedom. They no longer believe that people everywhere should have a voice. They no longer believe in people power. They no longer believe in democracy, or the idea that freedom is worth risk or sacrifice. They abandoned Kennedy long ago.

Friday, April 01, 2005

AFP (hat tip LGF) -Five people were wounded in a bomb attack near the Lebanese capital, the fourth such strike on a Christian area in less than two weeks, police said, updating an earlier toll.Syria maybe exiting, but perhaps they and Iran and their foot-soldiers in Hizballah are trying to fill the void by fomenting a civil war along the sectarian lines of the one that seems to be FAILING in Iraq.

Although I've always tried to be pleasant to the Christian Right folks even where we disagree, I really think it's best if I don't weigh in right now.

Well, I always hope that people can disagree without being disagreeable. The people who can't usually wind up losing.

You know that the nasty folks [folks who attack Glenn's stand on the Schiavo case] are unrepresentative, but they're so damned energetic about it that it's hard to keep that in mind at times.

I don't think that they're [the Schindler supporters] nascent Mullah Omars, and I think that calling them that just makes the problem worse. This is a tragedy, and it's become a circus. Name-calling just makes you one of the clowns. [Emphasis added.]

But Glenn has been nasty, too. Glenn has called conservatives and the devout bad names.

HERE ARE JUST A FEW RECENT EXAMPLES OF GLENN'S NASTY NAME-CALLING:

"If you don't want to be confused with a movement led by theocrats, don't let actual theocrats be seen as your spokesmen. It may be impossible to shut Randall Terry up -- though if I were Karl Rove, I would have tried really hard -- but he needs to be loudly and regularly denounced as a nut."

"As I said about the antiwar people, you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Randall Terry's a dog."

"I think that first crack is unfair to the snake-handlers."

"... not rushing to overturn all the rules because we don't like the outcome, seems to me to be part of being a member of civilized society rather than a mob. As I say, I thought conservatives knew this."

These are just a FEW examples of "the great and wonderful" INSTAPUNDIT calling Schindler supporters names; Glenn calls us: nuts; dogs; (worse than) snake-handlers; and essentially calls conservatives a mob. So when Glenn complains about the name-calling he's been the target of, it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. This makes Glenn Reynolds a HYPOCRITE, and a weenie. And a nasty clown - to borrow HIS words, HIS characterization.

HEY GLENN: If you can’t stand the heat, then get out of the blogosphere! HEH!Indeed.

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said Schiavo not only was a daughter and a sister but "most importantly, an innocent person was penalized by a court system that grants convicted murderers fair treatment under the law, but not a woman whose only crime was not filing a living will. ... The actions on the part of the Florida court and the U.S. Supreme Court are unconscionable. In California, Scott Peterson, a convicted murderer, was sentenced to death, yet his constitutional rights were upheld to ensure that he received due process and fair consideration in court. Terri Schiavo was given a death sentence, and passed away without the right to due process."

In a later conference call with reporters, Santorum said the courts had practiced nothing less than "judicial tyranny" in this case and took aim at those who say Congress overstepped its bounds. "[This is] routinely done by the courts — deciding they are now a super-legislature. ... "I'm not sure if the press realizes how serious this conflict is between the branches of government and how gravely concerned members of Congress are with [the] kinds of judicial tyranny we've seen. ... "To suggest Congress has exceeded power shows you there are judges who simply ignore written law and substitute their own judgments."

It will be seen for what it is: a hollow charge, and a hypocritical one , too.

WHY!?

Well, it's HYPOCRITICAL of the Left because when Ronald Reagan lived the Left HATED him; yet, (b) when he died the Left tried to exploit it to promote EMBRYONIC stem cell research (which is NOT the only form of stem cell research, or even the most promising form of stem cell research; and (c) stem cells have, to date, been shown to have very limited applications for people with Alzheimer's syndromes.

ON THE CONTRARY, the Right has been engaged with the Schindler's case from Day One.

THE TERRI SCHIAVO TRAGEDY has been seized on by long-time critics of the "religious right" to launch attack after attack on the legitimacy of political action on the basis of religious belief. This attack has ignored the inconvenient participation in the debate--on the side of resuming water and nutrition for Terri Schiavo--of the spectacularly not-the-religious-rightness of Tom Harkin, Nat Hentoff, Jesse Jackson, and a coalition of disability advocacy groups.

The attack has also been hysterical. After Congress acted--ineffectively, it turned out--Maureen Dowd proclaimed that "theocracy" had arrived in the land. Paul Krugman warned that assassination of liberals by extremists was not far off. And the Internet frenzy on the left was even more extreme.

Tina Brown can always be counted on to try and catch up to the real opinion-leaders of the left by filing a cheap imitation, as she does today with "America's Endless News Loop." Here's her embedded slam at the praying folk:

"The current mania for any story with a religious angle is just the latest index of the post-election angst in executive suites about the terror of being out of touch with suburban mega-churches and other manifestations of the supposed Real America. God forbid, so to speak, that anyone should stand up and suggest that Mozart might be as worthwhile as NASCAR, or that it might be as important for the soul to read Philip Roth as the hokey bromides of 'The Purpose Driven Life.'"

I suppose if Ashley Smith had read Tina Brown to Brian Nichols, he might have turned his gun on himself. Tina's suggestion that those praying people head straight from church to the NASCAR race and never have heard of Mozart tells us that she hasn't been inside a church in a long long time, and her suggestion that Philip Roth is [a] way to earthly happiness and eternal salvation, well, that's one for the ages: "The Philip Roth-Driven Life." (Perhaps some music and worship pastors might send Ms. Brown their liturgies/orders of worship from this past weekend to educate her on how Mozart and his colleagues and Christian worship aren't exactly strangers.)

*******

RELIAPUNDIT ADDS: The Left thinks that if you believe in God you are (a) an irrational stupid wacko nut-job, and (b) that for all intents and purposes Jihadoterrorists and Evangelicals and Hasidim and devout Catholics (for example) are equal, and equally dangerous.

I ask you: IS THAT A RATIONAL BELIEF? IS IT ACCURATE OR TRUE? OR IS IT A FALSE BELIEF BASED ON A LOGICAL FALLACY ?

Of course, it is an irrational and illogical and false belief; it's clearly an example of CONFLATION.

HERE ARE THREE EXAMPLES OF FALSE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEFT (in which Hugh Hewitt shall subsitute for the rieligous right): (I) "Binladen is religious; Hugh Hewitt is religious; therefore Hugh Hewitt and Binladen are equivalent." (II) "Binladen is dangerous and religious; Hugh Hewitt is religious; therefore Hugh Hewitt is dangerous." (III) Binladen is a religious fanatic; religious fanatics are fundamentalists; fundamentalists are part of the religious right; Hugh Hewitt is part of the religious right; therefore Hugh Hewitt is a dangerous fanatic." The conclusions of each of these three arguments are ILLOGICAL and FALSE. Yet the Left believes and promulgates them all.

I have suggested in numerous postings that the Left commits this fallacy because (1) Leftism is foundationally and FUNDAMENTALLY "anti-traditional Western religion" in nature; and (2) because since the collapse of the USSR and "RED" China, the Left has been mired in the hateful throes of COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. Lashing out at the foundational beliefs of the winning side - THE RIGHT - is nothing more than the reflexive action of this cognitive dissonance. The people WHO REMAIN ON THE LEFT, (a strange breed), find it easier to be irrationally hateful toward the victorious Right, than to admit they were TOTALLY wrong about politics and economics. Most of these folks who remain on the Left will go to their graves believing that Reagan and George W Bush were evil men.

UPDATE - from AP/BOSTON HERALD (hat tip The Corner): HERE'S MORE PROOF (FOR YOU LIBERALS OUT THERE) OF JUST WHAT KIND OF LOW-LIFE SCUM MICHAEL SCHIAVO IS: "The Schindlers' spiritual advisers said the couple had been at their daughter's bedside minutes before the end came, but were not there at the moment of her death because Michael Schiavo did not want them in the room."

And judges are not infallible. Not even the SCOTUS. Remember Dred Scot. And Japanese internment during WW2. And then - as far as state courts' infallibility goes: there's Claus Von Bulow and OJ.

Judges and courts are NOT infallible and the courts were NEVER intended to above the law.

Congress has specified, enumerated Constitutional authority over the federal courts. The Congress passed a Constitional law - (UNANIMOUSLY IN THE SENATE AND BY 75% IN THE HOUSE!) - which was signed by the president. This LAW ORDERED the federal courts to do a DE NOVO. A majority of the judges refused to do their duty. NOT ALL: a few Clinton appointed justices agreed that they MUST make a de novo review. AND LET ME REMIND YOU: years later, minority opinions (dissents) often turn out to be right. But the judges FAILED TO DO THEIR DUTY IN FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THE CONSTITUTION. This is OUTRAGEOUS. DO THEY THINK THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW!?

The majority of judges acted very badly. AND WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?! Well, the LIBERALS will tell you the judges acted well. AND IF THEY DIDN'T, THEN WHAT!? What do we do then!? How many judges - justices of the SCOTUS get voted out of office!? NONE. Which is to say: the judiciary is not as accountable as the Congress. Which proves that the judiciary is the branch of the federal government which we must be very VERY wary of.

So... now Terri is dead; she was starved to death - SLOWLY. If you did it to your pet, you'd get arrested. OH: BUT THIS IS WHAT SHE WANTED.

ARE YOU SURE!? HEY YOU LIBERALS OUT THERE: ARE YOU SURE!? 100% SURE!?And what if you are wrong. Then what is it that you just did to her!?Terri was helpless and voiceless - like a fetus. Terri was aborted by her husband - who was given auhority by a judge. The liberals do not care for fetuses or for voiceless, brain-damaged people. YEAH: PEOPLE!

Oh... did I hear a liberal out there say that fetuses are not people!? Then - PRAY TELL ME - what are they!? What is conceived at conception if it not a life!? What is a mother expecting if it not a baby!? And what is a person in a PVS if not a person!?

May Terri Rest in Peace.

I pray that God soothes the Schindler's grief over time, and channels their anger in ways that makes our world a better place.

And I pray that Michael Schiavo receives a just end, too - THAT GOD JUDGE HIM JUSTLY. I know God will judge perfectly and justly. Not like how Greer judged Terri; Greer: who merely PLAYED God.

UPDATE - from AP/BOSTON HERALD (hat tip The Corner): HERE'S MORE PROOF (FOR YOU LIBERALS OUT THERE) OF JUST WHAT KIND OF LOW-LIFE SCUM MICHAEL SCHIAVO IS: The Schindlers' spiritual advisers said the couple had been at their daughter's bedside minutes before the end came, but were not there at the moment of her death because Michael Schiavo did not want them in the room.

BERLIN, March 30 (Xinhua) -- Jordan-born terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi, operating in Iraq, is planning to launch chemical weapons attacks in Europe, a German magazine reported Wednesday. "Somewhere in Europe there's going to be a big bang and it will have been organized by Zarqawi," said a German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) official quoted by the political magazine Cicero. The unnamed BND source said it was unclear how far Zarqawi's agents had gone to prepare for a chemical attack. "We just know that he's working on it," a BND agent told the magazine. The magazine said Zarqawi's men, closely linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, is producing chemical weapons in Georgia and north Caucasus region of Russia. Zarqawi is believed to have at least 150 potential terrorists based in Berlin, Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg states, said the BND agents in the Cicero report.

The potential perps sound like they might be non-Arabic (and very European/European-looking) men and/or women who would be VERY hard to PROFILE. Stay tuned...

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

NEW YORK - A Web site with connections to the Iraqi insurgency posted a schematic map of JFK International Airport in New York City, along with a manual on how to use shoulder-fired missiles. ... NBC News obtained the information showing potential terrorists how to down civilian airplanes by using the missiles. The Internet posting also contained a simple map of JFK Airport, plotting flight paths of planes and the security perimeter. The Web site also showed a sketch of a terrorist shooting a missile at a plane from a rooftop. New York officials say they take this seriously and have alerted security at the airport. The FBI is still analyzing the information, but terrorism experts tell us there's no suggestion this poses any immediate threat.

Borne of a desire to rid Cuba of the US supported dictator Fulgencio Batista who ran Cuba as a Mafia-controlled "Latin Las Vegas," the Cuban Revolution was a popular rebellion of the masses led by the charismatic Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.

They're essentially saying, "Havana: the Cuban Las Vegas" and meaning it in a bad way.

IS THAT RATIONAL!? After all, Las Vegas is one of the fastest growing cities in the USA and has a high standard of living and low unemployment. It's also one of the FREEST most liberated places to live in the whole entire world. Anything goes in Vegas. And it stays there, too.(How do they do that, exactly!?)

And what is Havana now, after 50 years of Marxist tyranny? A poor Third World nation. One that can trade with every single country in the world EXCEPT the USA, and uses that as an excuse for its poverty. A place where you cannot read or write or worship freely. Or emigrate from legally.

I'd say Cuba would be A LOT better off if it still were the Vegas of the Carribean!

Rome, Mar. 30 (CWNews.com) - The files of the old East German secret service contain documents confirming that the Soviet Union ordered the May 13, 1981 attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II , Italian newspapers are reporting. Two newspapers, Corriere della Sera and il Giornale , are reporting that files from the Stasi, the East German spy agency, confirm the suspicions long held by Vatican officials. Documents in newly opened files show that the KGB, the Soviet spy agency, ordered the assassination attempt, which was carried out by the Bulgarian secret service.

Reagan was right: the USSR was the Evil Empire. (Welcome JAWA readers; please checkout a few other HOT short posts.)

Castro is an old man. Castro will die soon. If Bush were to start MORE VOCIFEROUSLY AND STEADILY denounce & deride the socialist tyranny in Cuba, then Castro's death MIGHT VERY WELL set off an UNSTOPPABLE popular democracy movement within Cuba (as Hariri's did in Lebanon and Arafat's did in the occupied territories).

Spain's socialist PM Zapatero is joining Russia's Tsar Putin in arming Venezuela's little Castro - Chavez. The threesome make up a "little axis of evil" that extends right here into our own backyard. BBC:

The Spanish prime minister has defended a plan to sell arms to Venezuela amid US concern that the deal could destabilise countries in Latin America. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is expected to finalise the purchase of ships and planes worth 1.3bn euros ($1.7bn) in Venezuela on Wednesday. He said the military equipment was designed to help regional security and to counter drug trafficking. The proposed deal has been denounced by Mr Zapatero's political foes in Spain. Spain's conservative opposition leader Mariano Rajoy described the plans as a "monstrous error" and said Venezuelan opponents of President Hugo Chavez had also criticised the proposal. The row in Spain follows international concern over Venezuelan plans to buy 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles from Russia. The US state department has accused Venezuela of starting an arms race and has suggested the rifles could end up in the hands of Colombia's left-wing Farc rebels.

Chavez is the Mugabe of South America. Those who arm him - pseudo-allies Russia and Spain - are also opposing us in other regions of the world. Spain and Russia are KNOWINGLY strengthening a very dangerous regime and DELIBERATELY flaunting American interests and opposing Bush's policies. I have a feeling Bush is noting this, and keeping it under his hat - until the time is right. (I hope the right time to confront Russia and Spain and Venezuela - AND MEXICO - comes sooner, rather than later! )

BBC: North Korean soldiers and riot police had to step in after violence erupted when the home side lost a World Cup qualifying match to Iran, say reports. Bottles, stones and chairs were thrown on to the pitch in Pyongyang after a North Korean player was sent off. Violence then spilled over outside the stadium and thousands of angry fans reportedly prevented Iranian players from boarding the team bus. ... A North Korean defector and former football official told Reuters that his homeland had an organised society and such behaviour was unlikely to be tolerated. "I have never seen anything like this myself," he said. "The people responsible are likely to be tracked down and severely punished."

This is a sign of the breakdown of the state's machinery of fear and terror, and it's a good omen.

The president was not served well by Powell. He was NOT a clear supporter of the president's policies to our allies; they knew this and it undercut our policies.

Rumsfeld is still on the job, and Powell is GONE - which proves that the president knows who served him and the USA well, and who did not.

Here's the proof - from an interview he gave in GERMANY, of course (FOX/AP):

" BERLIN — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said the Bush administration was sometimes "too blustery" in its rhetoric during the buildup to the Iraq war but he still believed toppling Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, according to a German magazine interview published Wednesday. I suppose we sometimes were too loud, too direct, maybe too blustery," Powell was quoted as saying. "That must have had the Europeans shuddering quite a few times." He also said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's famous jibe at France and Germany, when he labeled them "old Europe" for refusing to join the war in Iraq, did not help. "Terms like 'old Europe' didn't exactly have a confidence-building effect," Powell was quoted as saying, "and clearly helped turn public opinion in Europe against us."

POWELL: he did not get it then; he still doesn't get it. THANK GOD we finally have a GREAT Secretary of State, who gets it and who supports the president's polices and makes the president's case to the rest of the world. As a result, she has ALREADY proven she is more effective. While Powell - to this day - undercuts us to serve HIMSELF.

The human race is living beyond its means. A report backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries - some of them world leaders in their fields - today warns that the almost two-thirds of the natural machinery that supports life on Earth is being degraded by human pressure. ... "Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted," it says.

Didn't Paul Ehrlich say this in 1970!? Sheesh.

Today - as compared to 1970, (when Dr. Erhlich said we had ONLY 25 years left) - ALL commodities are more plentiful and cheaper, and the standard of living has gone up for hundreds and hundreds and HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people (especially China and India). Industrialization and globalization have done more to IMPROVE the living standards and health of humanity than anything else - EVER! And yet there are still a couple of BILLION people whose lives need improving - who need more freedom and prosperity, and I say helping them become freer and richer takes precedence over rare species and remote ecologies. ESPECIALLY when dire "sky is falling" predictions like these have ALWAYS been proven FALSE in the past.

Contrary to what many would have you believe - (especially those who deride Schindler supporters as right-wing theocratic wackos) - the Schiavo controversy is NOT between right-to-die people and the right-to-life crowd.

This case is about whether the court correctly determined what Terri's wishes were.

Contrary to what paranoid Leftists and nervous centrists would have you believe, there is NO MOVEMENT among ANY RIGHT-TO-LIFERS to ban DNR's or Living WIlls; IN FACT, George W. Bush and Laura, and their parents have them and urge ALL AMERICANS to get them! Virtually the entire "religious right" - including the RC Church, evangelicals, orthodox Jews, and Jesse Jackson (Heh) - accepts that individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment when confronted with terminal illnesses.

The Schiavo controversy is based on the fact that: (a) she is NOT terminal; and (b) her wishes are patently obscure.

I have concluded that Greer erred in ruling that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death rather than live, and that therefore the feeding-tube should have stayed in. And it saddens me that the federal courts have - up to now - thumbed their noses at any and all attempts to re-open the case so that this critical determination could be properly re-examined, and justice be done. In the absence of proof positive, I think the court must NOT act, or condone any act which will cause Terri to die.

If that makes me a right-wing theocratic wacko, then so is Joe Lieberman and Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader and Tom Harkin and Harry Reid

[Hawkins asks]: Did Terri Schiavo say she wanted to die if she were in this condition?

This is one of the primary points of contention in this case and with good reason.

Initially, as mentioned earlier, Michael did provide rehabilitation for his wife. Furthermore, in late 1992, Michael Schiavo said the following during testimony given in his medical malpractice suit:

"I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

But, in 1993 (Note: this is after Michael Schiavo had already started dating other women and received over a million dollars from the settlement of the medical malpractice suit), his attitude changed rather dramatically.

Michael Schiavo admitted in a November of 1993 deposition that earlier in the year, he had requested that doctors not treat a urinary tract infection that was potentially fatal to Terri. The doctors were not able to comply with Michael's request because it would have been illegal.

According to the The Times Leader, Michael Schiavo first claimed that Terri had told him she wouldn't want to live at this point, but most other sources that I've seen point to that information first being revealed in 1998.

In 1998, Michael said that while watching a movie, Terri had once opined that she wouldn't want to live if she were ever in a coma. Michael's older brother, Scott Schiavo, and Michael's sister-in-law, Joan Schiavo also claimed Terri had a similar conversation with them after a funeral.

"Diane Meyer can recall only one time that her best friend, Terri Schiavo, really got angry with her. It was in 1981, and it haunts her still.

The recent high school graduates had just seen a television movie about Karen Ann Quinlan, who had been in a coma since collapsing six years earlier and was the subject of a bitter court battle over her parents' decision to take her off a respirator. Meyer says she told a cruel joke about Quinlan, and it set Terri off.

"She went down my throat about this joke, that it was inappropriate," Meyer says. She remembers Terri saying she wondered how the doctors and lawyers could possibly know what Quinlan was really feeling or what she would want. "Where there's life," Meyer recalls her saying, "there's hope."

Added to that is the testimony of Terri's court appointed guardian, Richard Pearse:

"Pearse said he was troubled by the fact that Michael waited until 1998 to petition to remove the feeding tube, even though he claims to have known her wishes all along, and that he waited until he won a malpractice suit based on a professed desire to take care of her into old age. As her husband, Michael would inherit what is left of her malpractice award, originally $700,000, which is held in a trust fund administered by the court. Accounting of the fund is sealed. But Michael's lawyer, George Felos, said most of it has been spent on legal fees associated with the custody dispute. Pearse also said he did not find Joan and Scott Schiavo's testimony credible."

The Schindlers had contacted a woman Michael dated in 1991 who told them Michael had confessed to her he did not know what Terri would want. Although the woman refused to sign an affidavit, it bought the Schindlers some time. And with it, they found Trudy Capone. A former co-worker of Michael's, Capone signed an affidavit on May 9, 2001, stating "Michael confided in me all the time about Terri ... He said to me many times that he had no idea what her wishes were."

[HAWKINS CONCLUDES]: Despite the rather large amount of conflicting evidence, Judge Greer ruled in Michael Schiavo's favor on the issue.

According to the BBC: Lebanon's embattled caretaker prime minister has postponed an expected announcement that he is stepping down after failing to form a unity cabinet. Omar Karami said he needed to consult further with his pro-Syrian allies, reversing a pledge made a day earlier.

Do you think he got scared he was going to meet the same fate as HARIRI?

Last year, China stymied US efforts to levy sanctions on Sudan, which supplies nearly 5 percent of China's oil and where the US says genocide has occurred in its Darfur region. And as Zimbabwe becomes more isolated from the West, China has sent crates of T-shirts for ruling-party supporters who will vote in Thursday's parliamentary elections. [...] China is increasingly making its presence felt on the continent - from building roads in Kenya and Rwanda to increasing trade with Uganda and South Africa. But critics say its involvement in politics could help prop up questionable regimes, like Mr. Mugabe's increasingly autocratic 25-year reign. [...] China is increasingly making its presence felt on the continent - from building roads in Kenya and Rwanda to increasing trade with Uganda and South Africa. But critics say its involvement in politics could help prop up questionable regimes, like Mr. Mugabe's increasingly autocratic 25-year reign. [...] Reporters Without Borders, a group dedicated to freedom of the press, based in Paris, had this to say about the jamming: "Thanks to support from China, which exports its repressive expertise, Robert Mugabe's government has yet again just proved itself to be one of the most active predators of press freedom."

There's not much we can do about China right now. China has us over a barrel: we need their cheap goods and their confidence in the dollar. So, they seem to have carte blanche to oppress their people even as they are becoming a greater and greater competitor of ours for natural resources all over the world. This in turn increases the price of commodities and this in turn increases inflationary pressures in the US, and puts increasing pressures on the FED to keep raising interest rates - which is very bad for the real estate leveraged consumer-driven US economy.

It is NOT in China's interest for the USA to go into a recession, so they are motivated to moderate their growth. BUT still, I think we must find a way to put more pressure on China - to be a better world citizen and to treat their own people better, too.

I think we must do more than vociferously oppose what they're doing in Zimbabwe and the Sudan. I think we must overtly pressure them to do more for us regarding North Korea. We should make them MUCH more responsible for that nuclear-armed Marxist basketcase, and make our treatment of them CONDITIONAL on how helpful they are to us and South Korea and Japan on this front.

"Hugh's right that it's hard to ascribe the Congressional legislation to "theocrats" when it was supported by Tom Harkin (and Ralph Nader!). There's much more going on than that; this is a matter on which all sorts of people, of all sorts of persuasions, can be found on both sides. On the other hand, here's some advice, very similar to advice I gave to the antiwar movement: If you don't want to be confused with a movement led by theocrats, don't let actual theocrats be seen as your spokesmen. It may be impossible to shut Randall Terry up -- though if I were Karl Rove, I would have tried really hard -- but he needs to be loudly and regularly denounced as a nut.

You see how artful and smooth Glenn's tricky rhetoric is?! At first he seems to side with Hugh Hewitt (who criticizes Jeff Jarvis and Sullivan et al for claiming the the right-to-lifers are wacko theocrats who'll destroy the GOP), but then Glenn takes it away by saying that since Randall Terry is a spokesman for the Schindler cause that therefore the cause must be wacky after all. He's trying to have it both ways.

I think it is either disengenuous and amoral for Glenn to attempt to appear to be above it all when in fact THE BOTTOM-LINE IS that Glenn supports what the courts have decided (only because the courts have decided it) and agrees with the attacks agaionst the Schindler supporters (because of some of their spokesmen).

Most people may buy it - or excuse it, but not me; I know bullshit when I smell it, and Glenn Reynolds stinks on the Schiavo Case.

BBC:The chief international envoy to Bosnia, Lord Ashdown, says he has sacked the Croat member of Bosnia's tripartite joint presidency. Dragan Covic, accused of serious corruption, had refused to step down. He is the third member of Bosnia's presidency to be forced out under international pressure since the Office of the High Representative was set up. Lord Ashdown oversees implementation of the Dayton accords that ended the 1992-95 Bosnia war.

So let's get this straight: 10 years after the Dayton Accords were signed the EU is STILL ruling over Bosnia with ABSOLUTE POWER.

HOW DARE THE LEFTIES OF OLD EUROPE criticize our efforts in Iraq - where, in two years we have instituted democratic self-rule. Especially considering that compared to Iraq, Bosnia is a tiny nation. Here're the facts - you compare:

By comparison our accomplishment in Iraq is a HUGE SUCCESS! Heck; our Iraq efforts are a huge success even when compared to post-WW2 Germany and Japan!So the next time you hear any criticism of Iraq from the euroweenie Left: just say BOSNIA and flip them the bird!

Fox/AP: BEIRUT, Lebanon — Lebanon's pro-Syrian prime minister said Tuesday he would resign, unable to put together a government, and the head of military intelligence stepped aside in new signs the anti-Syrian opposition was gaining momentum in the country's political turmoil.

If the momentum keeps up, Lebanon will be democratic - and Syria-free by June.

Is this a theocratic right-wing mob? No effin' way it is! And those who say it is are talking pure bullshit. And I mean: Glenn Reynolds, James Joyner, Andrew Sullivan, Greg Djerejian, and Jeff Jarvis. They're assholes for charging that the pro-life/pro-Schindler crowd is a theocratic right-wing mob that threatens the GOP and/or the USA. See below.

VATICAN CITY — Pope John Paul II may have to return to the hospital to have a feeding tube inserted, an Italian news agency reported Tuesday. It stressed that no decision had been made. The APcom news agency, citing an unidentified source, said the 84-year-old pope might have to have the tube inserted to improve his nutrition since he is having difficulty swallowing with the breathing tube that was inserted Feb. 24. APcom said the idea of inserting a feeding tube was a hypothesis that was being considered. The procedure involves inserting a tube into the stomach to allow for artificial feeding.

The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk. America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.

This statement is a PURE EXAMPLE OF CONLFATION: Krugman puts right-to-lifers in the same category as assassins and terrorists. (Conflation is a logical fallacy and it's also a ROOT CAUSE of Leftist fear of religion and religious people - religiophobia; for more on this read a lengthy posts of mine HERE and HERE and HERE.)

I expect ominous Leftwing ravings of this sort from the Left and from their CHIEF PRIEST - Krugman. (He's been saying that Bush ECONOMIC policies were going to cause a rapid decline into depression for four years!!!!! We're still WAITING, Pauly!)

What I didn't expect was this: In THOROUGH AGREEMENT with the ominous warnings of Krugman are a few of the blogosphere's most popular centrist-hawks (who usually oppose EVERYTHING Krugman writes): GLENN REYNOLDS, JEFF JARVIS, ANDREW SULLIVAN, GREG DJEREJIAN, JAMES JOYNER.

Hey blog-stars: if you agree with Krugman, then it must be time for you to re-access your position! HEH! Indeed. Double Heh: HEH, HEH! Indeed.

A Florida judge decided that Terri would rather die by starvation than go on living as she'd been living. A florida judge decided that Terri WISHED to die. Some doctors say that Terri is aware of nothing, not even pain.

BUT, maybe they are wrong. Judges and doctors are fallible.

And there are many people who testified under oath that Terri is indeed aware of things - including pain, and that Terri was a devout Catholic who belived in the sanctity of life, and often said "where's there life there is hope."

Many in the Left-wing dominated MSM - (and even a few centrist-hawks in the blogosphere, like Instapundit, Andrew Sullivan, James Joyner, Jeff Jarvis and Greg Djerejian) - have derided the Schindler supporters as a theocratic MOB - dangerous religious zealots who want to demolish the wall between church and state.

Bullshit.

The Schindlers have seen the courts systematically rule in a way that guarantees their daughter dies a slow torturous death, and YET... in spite of that fact, and in spite of the fact that the court-sanctioned murder violates their most deeply held religious beliefs, they are stoically obeying the law!

That AIN'T behaving like a lunatic fringe, and when jerks like Jeff Jarvis say that they are FLAT OUT WRONG. They are projecting more about themselves than they are accurately describing reality!

The real MOB is the LEFT. They are - like Romans in the Colosseum - turning their thumbs down and demanding that Terri die. And the Judges - like obedient Emperors satisfying the blood-lust of the MOB - have obliged and have ordered that Terri be starved to death.

Terri's state-sanctioned murder is as legal as the murder of Christians in the Colosseum. Which is to say TOTALLY legal, and ABSOLUTELY MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE. And the real MOB is pleased.

I'd say that the news from Iraq is GREAT: they're SHOUTING to resolve their political conflicts and not SHOOTING! Sure, it's a messy process - BUT THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRACY IS! I have faith that the human beings who live in Iraq can make the difficult transition into self-rule as well as we did beginning in 1789.

"I APPRECIATE Andrew Sullivan's quoting me, but he's wrong: Unlike Andrew, I don't think that America is in danger of being taken over by religious Zealots, constituting an American Taliban and bent on establishing theocracy. I think that -- despite their occasionally abusive emails (and most aren't abusive, just upset) -- the people that Mickey Kaus is calling "pro-tubists" are well-meaning, sincere, and possessed of an earnest desire to do good." I don't think that they're nascent Mullah Omars, and I think that calling them that just makes the problem worse. This is a tragedy, and it's become a circus. Name-calling just makes you one of the clowns.

Then he closed the very same post thus:

"If I were in charge of making the decision, I might well put the tube back and turn Terri Schiavo over to her family. But I'm not, and the Florida courts are, and they seem to have done a conscientious job. Maybe they came to the right decision, and maybe they didn't. But respecting their role in the system, and not rushing to overturn all the rules because we don't like the outcome, seems to me to be part of being a member of civilized society rather than a mob. As I say, I thought conservatives knew this."

The Professor is saying: "On the one hand, I'd never call the Schindler supporters a mob; only clowns call other people names, and I am NO CLOWN." Then he says that Schindler supporters are a mob (and they should know better)! This is a blatant case of Glenn trying to have his cake and eat it, too.

I think this proves on the Schiavo Case that Glenn's a phony and a CLOWN.

Glenn is so verbally agile and his snarkiness is so cute that most people fail to see how hypocritical he is on the Schiavo Case. When Glenn says, "I thought conservatives knew this" he is is saying that conservatives are a mob, but saying it in a cute/snarky UNDERHANDED way! And it fooled a lot of people. I think most people saw this double-pleading (above) as reasonableness; "On the one hand BLAH, and on the other hand BLAH."

I see it differently: I think that Glenn's very conflicted on the Schiavo Case, and that's he's also trying to appear above the fray, and that he's trying to hold on to his BIG READERSHIP (which is all over the place on the Schiavo Case), and that because he's very good at talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time: he gets away with appearing to be in the middle. (Well, of course he can talk smoothly through both sides of his mouth at the same time: he is a LAWYER after all!)

Well, on the Schiavo Case I think Glenn's in the MUDDLE, not the middle, and I think to try to muddle through a case of such great public import, and of such profound moral nature (as the Schiavo Case is) is pathetic. And his position, (essentially that "the courts did a legal job" and so we should all just "move along; there's nothing to see here") is as meaningless as it is amoral.

Monday, March 28, 2005

In 50 out of 50 US states, when the husband cohabits with a woman other than his wife - (and has 2 kids with her) - then he is an adulterer in violation of his marriage vows, and this is ABSOLUTE PROOF in any divorce court in all 50 states of ABANDONMENT AND ESTRANGEMENT.

If Schiavo had to move on from Terri (because of her condition) - FINE --- but then he should've also given up guardianship of his EX-wife. Or the court shouldn't've taken his side. This is the fundamental conflict of interest that undermines Schiavo's assertion (and that of his family) that Terri would've wanted to die. An assertion that was not made until after he got the settlement money (seven years after her "incident") and after he got the new live-in girlfriend.

There is a striking parallel between the Terri Schiavo and the Elian Gonzales cases:

In each case, the victim is under the legal control of a man who is no longer living with the victim, who in fact has run off with another woman and fathered her children, and who no longer plays an active role in the victim’s life.

In Terri’s case, this is her husband. In Elian’s case, it’s his father. Moreover, in each case there are people willing and able to care for the victim – Terri’s parents; Elian’s relatives in Miami. Yet in each case, the man with legal control insists that the victim be harmed – Terri killed, Elian shipped back to Castro’s Cuba. And in each case, the liberals – who never shut up about their concern for the weak and the oppressed – have sided with the creep against the victim.

[...]

“The liberals now stand for death and oppression. And, with their allies on the courts, they use the letter of the law to impose their will.”

I agree with McCarthy's position, and I further maintain that folks (like GLENN REYNOLDS) who are opposed to the death penalty expressly because they feel that convicted murderers cannot EVER get enough "caprice & mistake free" judicial review, and yet who support the Schiavo-Schindler rulings and also believe that Terri got enough federal judicial review of her case (even though she ABSOLUTELY got LESS federal review than any convict on death row since 1976, and even though she got less federal judicial review than the Congress SPECIFICALLY INTENDED her to get) have INCOMPATIBLE positions without any philosophical consistency.

(KUNA): Iraqi security forces have surrounded Iraqs most-wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the countrys interior minister said during a news conference here on Monday. Al-Zarqawi, the leader of the terror network al Qaida in Iraq, has eluded arrest while kidnapping and killing people in Iraq. Yesterday, militants posted a video on the internet showing the purported execution of a man identifying himself as Interior Ministry official Col. Ryadh Gatie Olyway. "We have not arrested al Zarqawi," Interior Minister Falah al-Nakib said. "He is surrounded in a certain area, and we hope for the best. This operation is ongoing. We hope that the situation will be completely different in Iraq at the end of this year." Al-Nakib said al-Zarqawi was moving in "more than one area," but he refused to give details.

The outgoing interior minister also predicted the insurgency was nearing an end.

"It think it will collapse very soon," he said, adding: "Maybe by the end of this year, we will see a change, depending on the political situation."MORE AT JAWA!

The Schiavo case shows that though what the courts determine at any given time is always BY DEFINITION "legal," what the courts decide is NOT always GOOD or moral. In the Schiavo case - which I think is a miscarriage of justice - the problem stems from the ARBITRARY determination that Judge Greer made: that Terri wished to die (taher than live as she has been living). Terri is dying now because her DEATH-WISH was DETERMINED by a court, NOT because of what her wish actually was; (in fact, what she actually wished is somehting we shall never ever know).

In the Schiavo case, the state legislature, the state governor and the Congress AND the president (and ALL of Terri's blood relatives) ALL wanted a different ending. But the state judiciary - and the federal judiciary - refused to follow the EXPLICIT wishes of the other branches. The other branches respected the judiciary's determination to be the sole determiner of what was legal.

The Elian case DID NOT GET ITS DAY IN COURT: it was RUPTURED by the executive brach of the federal government when they FORCIBLY INTERVENED and KIDNAPPED Elian - (and forcibly returned him to Cuba where he is living under tyranny and poverty) - and prevented his case form being heard in the state courts. Clinton and Reno got away with this BALD DISPLAY OF RAW FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH POWER. In this case, the executive brach arbitrarily decided that ELian had to be with his father.

This decision was as morally wrong as Judge Greer's.

Neither decision - or the legal controversies they stirred up - has led to a good result for the principle party involved: Elian suffers under Castro; Terri is being starved to death.

Results should count. And we should always seek results that reinforce life and freedom. When results do the opposite, they are not only at odds with the most basic founding principles of our nation - they are BAD. If and when our laws, our lawmakers and our judges fail to do what reinforces our basic values and increase the good, then they must be changed.